Why the actual fuck is there no discussion about the Apollo hoax on its 50th anniversary on the conspiracy page? Are you all NASA shills or what the fuck? ( conspiracy )

submitted by blackguard19

And if not, why are you not out on normie Voat in full force spreading the message of fakery to poor souls who view the moon landings as a source of national or ethnic pride?

I’d like to know everyone’s favorite argument for the moon landing hoaxes.

If I had to pick one, other than the unassailable and eternally damning observation that none of the photos contain stars, mine comes from the move What Happened on the Moon, in which they contrast the sounds from a bobsled team on a practice run with the chatter during the touchdown of Apollo 11. In the bobsled video, you can hear the nervous adrenaline in the men’s quavering voices as well as the vibrations of the sled racing across the ice. Meanwhile, the Apollo astronauts, though using an engine that had literally never been tested, landing a craft that had literally never been landed successfully (and in fact crashed every time on earth), performing the most complex and challenging aeronautic feat in human history, a quarter million miles from home with no chance of rescue, with a myriad of catastrophes that could occur at any moment leading to sudden or horrific death, with (as one of the Apollo astronauts estimated) only a 50% chance of landing successfully, dwindling fuel supply, sound like two casual buffoons parking their car at Wal Mart. And of course you can’t hear the engine firing or any other sound. In fact I always encourage everyone to actually watch the original mission footage from any Apollo mission (few actually have), and notice how despite being in a constant state of peril with no chance of rescue, where the slightest mishap is fatal, they sound like a couple buddies on a fishing trip.

ComradeUseless

oh i do my part. the people do need to know why we must preserve this national pride and keep the questions under control. so it was a sham, so what? people are full of pride and joy, to this very day they brag about it, that is how happy this event has brought to generations of people. why must we take it away from them?

TwitterBannedIt

That awkward moment when ye ole conspiracy board begins to realize I'm a moon landing denier and possible flat earther.

Yea.. this aint my first rodeo.

LeonoreRootes

The Apollo Moon Landings were as fake as a 3$ bill .. watching the first allegedly manned lunar landing live on television in July 1969 from a military base near Sydney Australia, the camera was focused on a coke bottle for the first split second before the astronauts emerged from the lander, I was gonna say something when another soldier beat me to it he said "there's a coke bottle," it was definitely there.

Later in the program I knew I was witnessing bullsh*t when during allegedly live footage of astronauts loping about on the Moon, the structural members on the inside of a movie studio were visible for a few seconds when someone must have opened the wrong door .. some say cryptic remarks by Neil Armstrong were an attempt to repudiate the deception.

Others say the Jan. 27, 1967 fire wherein astronauts Edward White, Virgil Grissom and Roger Chaffee perished was for their having refuted the sham .. John Lear says a fourth astronaut died in the fire and insists the cover up remains ongoing, he talks of untimely deaths and freak accidents in the years between 1964 and 1967 that decimated NASA's astronaut corps.

CultureOfCritique

It seems many people on the far right want to believe we went because they see it as a source of white pride. We have enough accomplishments already-- like all of western civilization-- to rely on blatant hoaxes to have pride in our race. We created computers, nuclear weapons, modern democracy, etc. Do we really need to cling to a hoax to feel good about ourselves?

If you look into it even just a bit, you'll see deep state and Jewish influence all throughout NASA and the media that promoted their bullshit. The first documentary that started the questions for me was "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon", but there's so much more about there that's great. If you like longer articles that break down a lot of details, check out Dave's (RIP) work at: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

not_a_christian

mine comes from the move What Happened on the Moon

Poor name choice since they were never actually there. Should be: What Happened on Kubrics Set

ardvarcus

There is no Apollo hoax. White Christian hetrosexual American men walked on the Moon. The Jews are trying to take that away from whites, by promoting the conspiracy that there were no Moon landings. They will do anything to demoralize white people.

blackguard19

Keep telling yourself that for another 50 years.

Keep telling yourself this is a real space ship.

TwitterBannedIt

Seems legit.

Gymtcerk

It was real. Space X is real, Holocaust is real. Wake up and go to Mcdonalds where they use 100% Real Beef....face it the Jew blue pill is easier for sheep to swallow.

TwitterBannedIt

Wake up and go to Mcdonalds where they use 100% Real Beef

and i fkn lost it..lol

generationnoah

Hahaha it's amazing... paper, some cloth... some weak aluminium rods, lmfao

blackguard19

The pinnacle of human technological achievement.

generationnoah

So were going back in time?

IIJOSEPHXII

I'm a bit LTTP being a firm believer in the moon landings until 2017. When I did speak out, I was threatened with assassination by The Governess from the quiz show The Chase (see reply) https://twitter.com/llJOSEPHXll/status/964934165861945345?s=19

TrialsAndTribulation

@blackguard19 I'm totally on board with you. I came around to the Apollo moon landing hoax a little less than 20 years ago and I haven't stopped talking about it since then, at least with my long-suffering family and friends. I also watch "What Happened on the Moon", along with a few other such documentaries, but WHOTM is far and away the best of the bunch.

As a documentary that discusses the numerous arguments against the very possibility of getting to the moon and the bizarre anomalies in the documentary evidence, it would have been very helpful if the creators of the documentary had put titles between the various segments so we would know what they were going to talk about next. I have breakdown I began years ago for the first part but lost momentum to complete the second part. (Not because I'm lazy, but I had some other things going on where I couldn't find the time.) I'd like to share it with you because you seem like my kind of guy and you'd find value in it.

The moon landing hoax is taken for granted in most parts of the world. In the former Soviet Union, no one believed it, partly for political reasons and partly for practical scientific reasons. The Soviets were not able to put men on the moon and didn't even try because they knew it was impossible with existing technology and never believed either the US or NASA surmounted the challenges of the Van Allen belt and the blasting ambient radiation beyond that.

The Soviets did, however, put two rovers on the moon, which is quite verifiable and collected samples, some of which were tested on the lunar surface and extremely small quantities of which were returned to Earth. I recommend the document "Tank on the Moon". It's National Geographic, but still pretty objective.

generationnoah

NO they can't land anything on the moon you idiot. Space is faked through artist rendition and blind data collecting, this is the truth.

TrialsAndTribulation

Space is faked through artist rendition and blind data collecting

And you call me an idiot. This is nonsense.

blackguard19

Sibrel’s film was pivotal for my opening up to the Apollo hoax, and watching it for the first time was truly an unforgettable and mind-blowing experience. It’s very powerful and effective just from a production standpoint and really draws you in right from the opening montage of failed rocket launches overlaid with haunting renaissance-style choral singing. I have even personally emailed Sibrel to thank him for the movie and tell him how much it helped change my perspective and he actually replied, even inviting me to visit his church if I’m ever in Nashville again.

However, I have come to change my views on Sibrel or at least that movie. While I still appreciate the film as well as it’s follow-up Astronauts Gone Wild, and without boring you with the interstitial details of how I reached these conclusions, I now stand convinced that the “leaked” footage Sibrel claims he received from NASA, is actually also part of the Apollo cover-up. In other words words the scene from “low earth orbit” where they were faking the earth being seen as a far away ball out the porthole, I also believe this to be entirely staged.

No one goes to orbit, or the moon. I also must disagree that the Soviets or any other nation has ever put any people or craft on the moon. Because as a matter of fact it’s not “verifiable.” There was no space race, any more than there was really a Cold War. The USSR and now Russia are complicit in faking space missions like the ISS. It was a long road full of cognitive dissonance for me to accept these things and probably took me an additional two years to digest after first seeing Sibrel’s film and realizing that Apollo was a hoax.

TrialsAndTribulation

This sounds like some bizarre form of solipsism -- nothing is real outside of Earth. I don't suppose you also believe in a flat Earth, do you?

blackguard19

I don’t know that the earth is flat and I think that “flat earth theory” is basically a misnomer. The larger point is that “outer space” is fake and we are in an enclosed system. What is outside our system, if anything, I obviously can only guess. But for example, a vacuum (space) cannot exist next to a pressurized system (atmosphere) without a barrier in between. Also there is no observable or measurable movement/rotation of the earth.

Roughpatch

And how the hell are they talking back and forth to NASA from so far away in real time, when I can't always use my cell because no signal? And what's with the loose tinfoil ? And the fake moon rocks? How many rockets blow up nowadays? Hard to believe they were better at making them then. Oh, and they lost the tech to go back?

MrPeanutButtersHouse

All these dumb nigger faggots actually believe NASA! Wake the fuck up and realize it was an elaborate hoax and most of y’all are too fucking stupid to see that but but but space and gravity! Fuck out of here with that bullshit! The only thing that ever went to space was your imagination!

blackguard19

But but but white people did it

qwop

So now it's fake because professionally trained men are too calm? GTFO.

Ever heard the tape of captain Sully, Chesley Sullenberger, that landed an airliner with a double engine failure full of passengers into the Hudson river? You don't hire beta males with quivering voices and racing hearts when you build professional teams.

You hoax pushing scam artists are really grasping at straws.

blackguard19

You think the Sully bullshit actually happened? Here’s a good rule of thumb for the goyim: if they made a Tom Hanks movie about it, it’s probably bullshit fabrication. This applies to Apollo and Sully.

But anyway, ok.... you don’t like that one specific argument even though it is perfectly sound and stands on its own merit..... good thing there are like 500 other reasons people know Apollo is fake.

roznak

LLRV Testing Contributed to Apollo 11's Success

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ezcY-mkU

roznak

Why You Can't See Stars on the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ksUQfEzMoM

generationnoah

Small earth on moon surface but big earth when shot behind the moon, Stanley Kubrick hanging with Arthur C Clarke and, George Muller, gimme a break!!!!! https://www.aulis.com/

roznak

Wide angle versus zoomlens

Photography Tips - Focal Length Changes 3 Things - Focal Length Explained 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3A3SnPFPk0

HONK HONK

generationnoah

Can't zoom in/out things with a 50mm lens. Can't zoom in/out things when they're on the "infinite"-marker on a photo lens, which distant objects always are, those on the far horizon in the video. Just stop it.... no space progression because it's a joke.

generationnoah

It doesn't matter, what I said about the infinite still holds true, your example doesn't work because the objects aren't in the foreground.

roznak

Moon distance 1000 Km, Earth distance 384.000 Km that is a 384 to 1 ratio. Yes the moon is in the foreground!

generationnoah

A distance object is a distant object, the foreground just stretches some meters, you don't know much about photography and how lenses work, I can see that

roznak

The sun is 1.500.000.000 Km from Earth and yet we have the cowboy that drives into a GIANT Sun, while when I look outside the sun is smaller than people.

BAZINGA!

blackguard19

Let me guess...... camera exposure settings? Oh, never heard that lame ass excuse before!!!

Too bad according to NASA stars should easily be visible from the moon.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

And I guess despite ten manned moon missions they never once set the exposure settings to capture what would have been the most awe-inspiring stsrscape ever beheld by man.

Doesn’t matter anyway, because the cameras should not have worked anyway, and there have been so many differing accounts of astronauts and cosmonauts about whether they could see stars or just blackness that it’s obvious none of them have even been to space anyway. Never A Straight Answer, of course.

https://www.aulis.com/high_moon.htm

You just going to link to more shill crap or are you capable of formulating your own thoughts?

qwop

Too bad according to NASA stars should easily be visible from the moon. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

This is not what that post is about. It is about the fact that we cannot see stars during daylight, and especially not stars around the sun, because the atmosphere scatters so much light from the sun, that it's not possible to photograph space nor stars during the day.

It means IF we would be in space, and IF we would want to photograph stars (with proper exposure), we would be ABLE to do it, even with the sun in our viewfinder, because the sun's light is not scattered to obscure our view.

This is the important point: you still need proper exposure for the stars, but if there was no atmosphere, you could IN THEORY photograph stars during daylight, while looking at the sun.

What the post does not explain, is that the sun's rays would probably still scatter in the lens, making that exact APOD picture very difficult to reproduce. But this was left out, as it would not be a "fun" post any more, and become too technical.

But no, it does not say "if you photograph with ISO 80 at 1/250 in space, this is what you get".

B3bomber

These people don't care even if there is physical proof. When it's cheap enough to drop their asses on The Moon in some soft of container that has several hours of air, I hope lots of people get a 1 way ticket.

After they're dead, decompress and link "containers" to start building a moon base. Personally though, I'd rather we just go strait to Mars since it's a simpler environment to design for (permanent habitation).

qwop

The page you referenced gives the exact same explanation of why there are no stars in the images. But I guess you just choose to ignore that, because it doesn't fit with the narrative, eh?

In the Apollo 11 photographs there are no stars at all, but merely black space, which may be explained by limitations of the selected camera exposure settings.

If you want to really debunk the "missing stars", why don't you provide me with some actual calculations on the matter. We know the cameras were locked at 1/250s shutter speed, and we know they used ISO 80 film for most of the shots. Which btw. is an extremely fast film. Nobody in their right mind would try to photograph stars with ISO 80.

But never mind that little detail. Since we know the ISO sensitivity and the shutter speed, as well as the approximate aperture of the camera. We should have all we need, to be able to calculate if stars are visible or not with 1/250 on ISO 80.

Now I give you a small challenge in the meantime: try and photograph anything less than sunlight with ISO 80 @ 1/250, and you can see for yourself what happens. But of course that's just too easy, so you continue to kvetch about the missing stars, while not actually doing any calculations or even bothering to try it out yourself.

blackguard19

What is this pilpul? The question is not whether exposure settings can and would conceal stars — which would be visible to the naked eye according to NASA, which is obviously why I linked to the APOD site. The point is that if the missions were fake, it makes perfect sense that stars would be omitted in all photographs. But if it were real, it makes 0 sense that not a single camera would have been optimized to see the stars, a single time during ten missions.

“Maybe if I babble some irrelevant word salad about ISO sensitivity and shutter speed, people will ignore the obvious glaring anomaly that has been pointed out about why no effort was made to include stars in a single Apollo lunar photograph.”

roznak

Correct exposure of the astronauts (=underexposed stars) or correct exposure of the stars (= overexposed astronauts): Choose one.

blackguard19

Yeah let’s send men to the moon ten times and take over 5,700 photographs while doing so...... but fuck the stars. Who needs em. Don’t dare take a single picture of them.

blackguard19

None of those include the lunar surface, retard. The whole point is that they couldn’t include stars with the EVA pictures because any amateur astronomer could have pointed out the inconsistencies and mistakes of perspective and parallax. We’re obviously not talking about contextless bullshit smatterings with no points of reference that could have been produced at any time between now and 1969 with Microsoft Paint or the like.

roznak

Correct exposure of the astronauts (=underexposed stars) or correct exposure of the stars (= overexposed astronauts): Choose one.

HONK HONK

carlip

Yes I'm sure that would make you retards believe it all.

blackguard19

Uhhhh, it’s more likely that there would be no stars if the missions were fake than if they were real. That’s how inductive reasoning works. When every single bit of evidence also falls into the “more likely if fake” column, one can begin drawing a conclusion.

roznak

Moon Machines 2008 - The Space Suit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJbztthNrVQ